https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
This is not a multipolygon. This is a building. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building.
Would you be so kind to explain, why you don't like documented types of relations?
Und nein, type=multipolygon wäre hier definitiv falsch!
"A MultiPolygon is a MultiSurface whose elements are Polygons." So by definition this is a multipolygon.
Also type=building was proposed in 2007. 13 years later there are less than 100 objects using that tag in Hamburg. Which means there is no reason to use it at all. It per se means it's deprecated.
For this building it doesn't make any sense to use more than a simple way anyway.
And the shape isn't even correct the one we see on the image in editing mode.
I mean all this is also about people using the data, which simply doesn't get easier when people's "mapping fun" gets somewhat out of hand.
"And the shape isn't even correct the one we see on the image in editing mode."
Oh, believe me, it is correct. I checked on ground. "the image in editing mode" Which one?
"I mean all this is also about people using the data, which simply doesn't get easier when people's "mapping fun" gets somewhat out of hand."
That's why I added the relation. It makes querying easier.
"So by definition this is a multipolygon."
No, multipolygons only apply to two dimensional shapes.
SO ich mach dann mal hier zu. Da das Gebäude korrekt gemappt ist.